Religious Studies John Stuart Mill: Criticisms of the teleological argument

Religious Studies Biography in brief Born in 1806, Mill was a child genius schooled in Latin and Greek by the age of 8. His father was a good friend of Jeremy Bentham and Mill is best known for reworking his theory of Utilitarianism. Wrote widely on Politics and Ethics. His essay ‘On Liberty’ is regarded as a philosophical classic and gives the principle of non-harm. He died in 1873.

Religious Studies Mill on Nature Mill’s essay on nature (see worksheet) summarises what for Mill was a key problem in the teleological argument. Mill develops Hume’s point about the imperfections in nature. He engages seriously with the problem of evil and works through the possible consequences for the traditional theistic God.

Religious Studies Key quote “The system of Nature, taken as a whole, can’t have had for its principal object - let alone its only object - the good of human or other sentient beings. What good it brings to them, is mostly the result of their own efforts. Anything in Nature that points to beneficent design proves that this beneficence is only with limited power; and the duty of man is to co-operate with the beneficent powers, not by imitating the course of Nature but by perpetually striving to amend it – and bringing the part of it that we can affect more nearly into conformity with a high standard of justice and goodness.”

Religious Studies The cruelty of nature (1) Mill feels that observation of nature does not logically lead to the conclusion that it is designed for human good. The two most cruel things that humans do are to take life and to deprive someone of their livelihood. These two things are done by nature regularly via natural disasters. Any evil that humans do, nature can do better (or worse if you prefer!).

Religious Studies The cruelty of nature (2) “Nature does all this with the most lofty disregard both of mercy and of justice, firing her weapons indiscriminately at the best and noblest people along with the lowest and worst; at those who are engaged in the highest and worthiest enterprises, and often as the direct consequence of the noblest acts - as though Nature were punishing people for acting well!” Discuss: Is Mill correct that nature punishes good actions?

Religious Studies What options do we have? Mill notes that people in the past have considered gods may be both good and evil. Some thinkers have argued that misery is not really evil. These answers are not convincing. Nor is he convinced that suffering and evil are permitted to make us virtuous. A good and powerful God would not resort to this. There is one option that no one seems to have considered...

Religious Studies “this thesis could help to explain and justify the works only of limited beings who have to labour under conditions independent of their own will; but it can’t apply to a Creator who is assumed to be omnipotent.’ ‘There is only one admissible moral theory of creation, namely this: The force of good cannot subdue - completely and all at once - the powers of evil, either physical or moral. It couldn’t place mankind in a world free from the need for an incessant struggle with the powers of evil, or make men always victorious in that struggle; but it could and did make them capable of carrying on the fight with vigour and with progressively increasing success. Of all the religious explanations of the order of Nature, this is the only one that doesn’t contradict either itself or the facts that it is trying to explain.” What conclusions does Mill have about the nature of God? Why does he reach this conclusion?

Religious Studies What do you think? What strengths and weaknesses might there be of Mill’s view? Weigh up the evidence.